Government backs one-off rural housing

Villain

Well I'm sure people will have read about Berties comments yesterday in the newspapers today.

If you didn't basically he said the restrictions were "too severe".
He said there was no case for refusing permission to land owners in the heart of rural Ireland for housing for family members, forcing them to move out of their areas when Government policy was to ensure the viability of rural enviroments.

Labour reacted angerily saying that he was currying favour in the countryside with "a nod and wink policy". Labours enviroment spokesman said "He is saying to the guys with the sites for sale 'I'm right with ye boys, go ahead and apply for planning permission,' while the government is telling Bord Pleanala that large scale development in the countryside is not acceptable".

Now basically Labours spokesman reckons Bertie is giving the green light to large scale developments.

I think basically all the councilors are telling the TD's the rural people won't put up with Bord Pleanala denying them the right to build in their home areas. I'm from a rural area but none of my family own land so if I wanted to build in the area I would have to buy a site and get planning permission which at the moment I wouldn't probably get.

I want to know what people think on this situation. I think the goovernment know that rural votes will not be coming there way next election unless they do something.

Victor

Taoiseach criticised over rural housing comments
From:ireland.com
Friday, 12th September, 2003

The Taoiseach has been criticised following remarks he made yesterday suggesting a relaxation of planning laws to allow for more one-off house building.

The Fine Gael leader Mr Enda Kenny and the Labour Party's Eamon Gilmore were critical of the Taoiseach's remarks which Mr Kenny said gave false hope to thousands of young people who wished to build houses in the countryside.

The Labour Party's Environment spokesman, Mr Eamon Gilmore accused the Taoiseach of adopting a "nod-and-wink" approach to the issue of rural housing.

Mr Ahern said it was necessary to persuade people of the merits of the case for allowing such housing for young couples on family farms.

However, Mr Gilmore said: "Once more, we have to rely on the 25-second sound-bite from the Taoiseach to obtain an insight into Government policy."

He said: "On the one hand, the Taoiseach is giving a big wink to people in the countryside who are selling sites or who are seeking planning permission for one-off housing, letting them believe that he is on their side."

"On the other hand the Government and Department of the Environment is giving an official nod to An Bord Pleanála to refuse the very same planning permissions."

Mr Gilmore called for a comprehensive statement of Government policy on rural housing.

Environmental groups and the planning authorities criticise one-off rural housing, saying it creates a "bungalow blitz" that spoils the aesthetic of the countryside.

Fine Gael's Parliamentary Party Chairman Tom Hayes TD said the Taoiseach was "only bluffing when he gave his backing to one-off rural housing on family farms."

He claimed that if the Taoiseach "was really committed to addressing the housing crisis in rural Ireland, he would have addressed it long ago."

Mr Ahern, however, maintains it makes no sense to refuse permission to build houses when the Government had a strategy of trying to get people to move into the regions and out of cities.

What sort of idiot do we have as Taoiseach - "Mr Ahern, however, maintains it makes no sense to refuse permission to build houses when the Government had a strategy of trying to get people to move into the regions and out of cities" yet they have had a decentralisation plan on hold for **six** years. By all means put growth centres around the country, but put them in places where people can access jobs and transport and services - everything from shop and doctors to garda stations and post offices. One off rural housing profoundly undermines this. This policy of allowing one offf housing adds thousands to the cost of a household every year - two cars, school bus, 10 mile trip to the supermarket, teh list goes on and on.

Lord Nikon

Originally posted by Victor
This policy of allowing one offf housing adds thousands to the cost of a household every year - two cars, school bus, 10 mile trip to the supermarket, teh list goes on and on.

Yes, it does allow one-off housing, but in fairness, the family who wishes to have their "one-off" house is putting themselves in this position. It's not as if the government is forcing them to build a house and then live in it.

I certainly wouldn't build a house, if I knew I couldn't afford to live in it.

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
This policy of allowing one offf housing adds thousands to the cost of a household every year - two cars, school bus, 10 mile trip to the supermarket, teh list goes on and on.

The government should not be telling people where to live. We live in a free and open country and not in communist state.

Settlements in pre-famine Ireland were all over the place. There were more living out in the country than today. People had to walk to school.

I lived in a small town & a city. It was easier to get the shopping down in the small town. The bigger the town does not mean infrastructure is better.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
IIt was easier to get the shopping down in the small town.

Simply because the shop keeper is underemployed.And why is urban population growing faster than rural population? I'm not saying everyone should live in cities - they should be reinhabiting the towns and villages that are whinging they are loosing services. The reason they are loosing services is because the people 3 miles outside the village find it easier to get everythign done in the local town not the under-sized, under-populated would be "village".

Originally posted by Cork
The bigger the town does not mean infrastructure is better.

So how many villages have say a cinema or a secondary school or a video store or a choice of supermarkets or a broadband hub?

mike65

Maybe this thread should be merged with MDRs....

Mike.

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
So how many villages have say a cinema or a secondary school or a video store or a choice of supermarkets or a broadband hub?

Many areas in our cities don't have many pubs or shops either. The advent of domer towns servicing our capital city is mad.

Towns where people sleep and commute to sprawling Dublin.

I passed down thru Clon and Skibb last week. They are busy towns. They are not tourist traps but they were a joy to look at.

Compare this to our cities? Badly planned with traffic madness.

Typedef

I think that the last thing the government should do is place pseudo-social regulatory blocades in the way of settlement development in Ireland.

That means, this nonesense, where one has to be born in Wicklow, in order to build a house there, has to stop, since, for me, such a policy is effectively snobbery, enshrined in legislation.

I find the notion of people dictating the 'asthetic' of the countryside, equally condecending.

I encourage the development of regions other then Dublin, but, not to the detrament of Dublin, since 1/3 of the State lives there, it makes little sense to limit it's growth, or overall population and economic growth, on an equally condecending pseudo-social agenda.

Imposter

Originally posted by Victor
This policy of allowing one offf housing adds thousands to the cost of a household every year - two cars, school bus, 10 mile trip to the supermarket, teh list goes on and on. [/B]

I'm sorry but there's some very stupid arguments there Victor.
How much is a house in dublin or any big town?

Why do a lot of families in Dublin have anything from 2-4 cars (I'm thinking suburbia and not inner city here!)? After all they have an 'infrastructure' there with local shops etc. And they also generally shop in large Shopping centres such as Liffey Valley, The Square, Blanch.

vinnyfitz

1. Lots of rural housing applications are being given permission - about 80% of those applied for. But these statistics never seem to get coverage.
2. People who are refused permission are generally very disappointed 'cos they have not converted cheap land into valuable land - not 'cos they have to live miles away from their farm or family.
3. Bertie does not understand this - its not about "aesthetic arguments". Its about poisoning the water table through lousy septic tanks. (Already you can't drink the water in lots of areas of the west coast 'cos of the ****e residues leaking out of septic tanks).

Allowing people build houses in the countryside costs society money - lots of money. I say let people build new non-farm homes and holiday homes in non serviced rural sites but let them pay say 200,000 euros as an initial levy. That sort of fee might approximate to the costs involved in serving voluntary rural dwellers.

PH01

This debate over OORH has many levels and there are lots of merits both for and against of which some have been stated above.
But I feel that this issue shouldn't be taken on its own, but with the overall housing need.

Originally posted by Typedef
I think that the last thing the government should do is place pseudo-social regulatory blocades in the way of settlement development in Ireland.

That means, this nonesense, where one has to be born in Wicklow, in order to build a house there, has to stop, since, for me, such a policy is effectively snobbery, enshrined in legislation.

I agree, planning restrictions are extreme in Wicklow and some other counties.
Obviously some restrictions should be put in place for whatever justifiable practical reason on a case per case basis.
But to prohibit local people from building their houses where they want to live in a blanket fashion is wrong imho.

I find the notion of people dictating the 'asthetic' of the countryside, equally condecending.

To a point, yes I agree with that view too, but a case by case study prior to approval/disapproval of planning is necessary to prevent eye sores popping up.

mm

Villain

Originally posted by vinnyfitz
1. Lots of rural housing applications are being given permission - about 80% of those applied for. But these statistics never seem to get coverage.

Please back those figures up are they a nationwide average or for particular areas?? I don't think Carlow Co Co is approving 80%.

Originally posted by vinnyfitz

2. People who are refused permission are generally very disappointed 'cos they have not converted cheap land into valuable land - not 'cos they have to live miles away from their farm or family.

Bull****, you should refrase that "farmers who are selling the site subject to planning permission are pissed off because they didn't make money" not the person apllying for permission.

Originally posted by vinnyfitz

3. Bertie does not understand this - its not about "aesthetic arguments". Its about poisoning the water table through lousy septic tanks. (Already you can't drink the water in lots of areas of the west coast 'cos of the ****e residues leaking out of septic tanks).

New planning regulations are a lot stricker than old ones in realtion to this issue, PureFlow systems are a lot better.

Originally posted by vinnyfitz

Allowing people build houses in the countryside costs society money - lots of money. I say let people build new non-farm homes and holiday homes in non serviced rural sites but let them pay say 200,000 euros as an initial levy. That sort of fee might approximate to the costs involved in serving voluntary rural dwellers.

That has to be one of the most unfounded and misguided comments I've ever read on Boards and it's that kind of ignorance that will kill our rural society.

Can I ask are you curently or have you ever in the past lived in a Rural location??

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
I passed down thru Clon and Skibb last week. They are busy towns. They are not tourist traps but they were a joy to look at.

Ah but Clonakilty and Skibbereen are two of the nicest towns in the country (certainly Clon). Most Irish towns and villages are crapholes. Let's contrast Clon and Skib with, oh, say, Buttevant and Mallow. The two wesht Cork towns also have the advantage of being at the end of the universe in relation to traffic. Your statement is of course correct, but there's a good reason for the contrast.

RainyDay

The latest cash crop for farmers - houses.

How many of these 'homes for family members' get sold off or rented out within a year or two - It kinda makes a joke of the whole 'homes to keep our family together on the land' arguement.

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
The latest cash crop for farmers - houses.

How many of these 'homes for family members' get sold off or rented out within a year or two - It kinda makes a joke of the whole 'homes to keep our family together on the land' arguement.

And compare that to permission given to developers in Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. How is it any different other than the fact that the developers have a larger supply of brown envelopes?

Farmers are trying to cash in as they realise that they will earn more by selling their land for housing than they ever will farming it. Imo the entire planning permission laws and regulations need looking at and not just a small subset of them.

RainyDay

How is it any different other than the fact that the developers have a larger supply of brown envelopes?

The difference is that the rural planning permissions are often based on a fundamental lie, i.e. it is for a member of the family.

I agree that the whole planning permission system needs to be reviewed.

Originally posted by RainyDay
The difference is that the rural planning permissions are often based on a fundamental lie, i.e. it is for a member of the family.

Is there any difference between one family and the next?
Why should there be a rule in place dictating who should live where?

and more importantly why should unelected officialls paid for by the tax payer have the ultimate power to decide who is to live where or what is to be built where?

Indeed there was a recent high court case where Wicklow County Council took their own County manager to court to try to over turn his decision to give planning approval for a pet incinerator against the locals wishes.

Regarding Farmers selling sites, why shouldn't they?
If they sell an acre for instance, they lose all income for that for their own and the next several generations.
I'm pretty sure if my next door neighbour offered me enough to take a part of my garden , I'd give it to him/her.
Similarally if my house was at the side of the road and the council wanted to widen that road, I'd be looking for the market value of that piece of ground plus disturbance money.
It's no different to being offered compensation by a company for having to work in a new location for them many miles from the existing one.

mm

Villain

Originally posted by Man
Is there any difference between one family and the next?
Why should there be a rule in place dictating who should live where?

and more importantly why should unelected officialls paid for by the tax payer have the ultimate power to decide who is to live where or what is to be built where?

Well It's as much to do with WHO you are but more so WHERE you come from, People who have been brought up in a rural area should be allowed to bring their children up in a rural i.e sustain the rural life.

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
The difference is that the rural planning permissions are often based on a fundamental lie, i.e. it is for a member of the family.

I'd possibly use the word 'sometimes' there and not 'often' as some(most imo) of those who have built a house and sold it shortly afterwards have done so as the market changed. They saw they were sitting on a huge asset and decided they'd cash in. That doesn't mean that they were planning this from the moment they sought permission.

And I think you'll find some planning requests for large developments which are economical with the truth as well!

RainyDay

and more importantly why should unelected officialls paid for by the tax payer have the ultimate power to decide who is to live where or what is to be built where?

So what is the alternative, Man - Do you want to give planning authority to the elected officials? If so, we will end up with the kind of disastrous 'bungalow blitz' that blighted the west of Ireland in the 70's & 80's when the local authorities were voting Section 4 motions like there was no tomorrow.

Or do you want no planning process at all? So we all just build what we like, where we like? And will you still be happy with this approach when your next-door neighbour builds a 4-story offal storage plant upwind of your back garden?

Is there any difference between one family and the next?
Why should there be a rule in place dictating who should live where?

The whole rural planning debate has been fuelled by farming families claiming that the purpose of the one-off housing is to let their family members live on the land. I think this is a load of bull. I'd just like the planning applications to honestly reflect reality, i.e. we want to build this house so we can sell it off to a German hippie with a pile of cash, instead of the lies currently being told.

A bit of honesty goes a long way...

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
the fact that the developers have a larger supply of brown envelopes?

There you ahve it, why should anyone with brown envelopes (full of used twenties passed to local councillors) get planning permission. I heard of a guy get planning permission as a "local". He was from Newbridge, her from Drogheda, the site was past Kildare and he worked in Ballsbridge???????

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1600495?view=Eircomnet

Anger over rural housing and rental sector
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 2nd October, 2003

The Taoiseach has been accused of making contradictory statements about one-off housing in rural areas and local authorities have been attacked for failing to exercise their duty to register landlords.

The criticisms come on a day the Central Bank warned that the housing market in Ireland is in danger of collapse.

The Irish Rural Dwellers Association (IRDA) today said the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, had performed a "u-turn" in a Dáil statement when he agreed with the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen's view that the building of homes in rural areas should be restricted to local landowners and their immediate families.

IRDA spokesman, Mr Declan MacPartlin, said he was "shocked" that just two weeks after backing a relaxation of current restrictions, Mr Ahern was now behind a regime which is "even more restrictive than that indicated in the National Spatial Strategy".

He said Mr Cullen was also contradicting earlier statements and that of Minister of State for Rural Development Mr Eamon O'Cuiv.

"Members of this Government appear to have diametrically opposed views on rural housing," Mr MacPartlin said. However the IRDA have widespread support among local authority politicians, he added.

Meanwhile, Labour Party justice spokesman, Mr Joe Costello hit out at local authorities' failure to regulate the rental sector, accusing them of "hypocrisy and double standards".

Speaking in the Dáil, the Dublin Central TD said local authorities were required to register landlords under legislation introduced in the mid-90s. However, "they simply did not exercise their duty on the implementation of the law", Mr Costello said.

He pointed out that the legislation was self-financing because the local authority was entitled to charge a registration fee of £40 per unit of accommodation.

"Compare this with the rush to implement the legislation on waste collection ... the ink was scarcely dry on when the Dublin local authorities threatened dire consequences ... and Fingal County Council put a TD in jail for a month.

"We will have to wait a long time to see a landlord in jail for a month for evicting a family," Mr Costello said.

He said hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford to buy were being discriminated against as a consequence.

The authorities' failure to implement the provision meant the opportunity to ensure good standards and tax compliance had been lost, he added.

star gazer

The Taoiseach has been accused of making contradictory statements

This must be some mistake.

If people are part of the community and work in the community there shouldn't be a problem with it. Rural ireland is still being depopulated with agriculture gradually collapsing in employment numbers. There has to be a concerted effort to make such rural communities viable.
I would have a problem with someone who commutes to the nearest city or who just wants a holiday home. There needs to be a balance between keeping irelands landscape beautiful and giving wealthy folks something to buy.

RainyDay

If people are part of the community and work in the community there shouldn't be a problem with it.

While this all sounds fine & dandy, what is happening in reality is that as soon as the houses are built, they are being sold to the highest bidder, who probably has no roots in the local community, and commutes to work in their oversized 4x4 through narrow country roads which were designed to accomodate a horse & cart.
One-off houses are the latest cash-crop for Irish farmers.

Originally posted by RainyDay

One-off houses are the latest cash-crop for Irish farmers.

no it's not the latest , it's been the case that property owners have been selling property since God made Gooseberries.

As was pointed out in this thread earlier, if a neighbour wants to increase the size of their garden by taking a piece of mine, I'll sell it to him.
And since thats in a nice location, he can pay through the nose for it.
It's a nice cash crop too, and you don't have to be a farmer to have it.

mm

RainyDay

You are conveniently ignoring the important issue that planning permission for these one-off houses is generally granted based on 'roots in the community' factors. The whole planning process in being ridiculed by the farmers who then proceed to sell off the houses/sites at the earliest opportunity. I've also heard of cases where the planning permission had a 'clawback' if the property was sold within 10 years, so the farmer just rented it out instead.

If the farmers can get planning permission without claiming the property is for the long-lost son returning from the big shmoke, then of course, they are entitled to sell it off as they see fit. But if they claim it is for family, it should be restricted to family.

If the farmers can get planning permission without claiming the property is for the long-lost son returning from the big shmoke, then of course, they are entitled to sell it off as they see fit. But if they claim it is for family, it should be restricted to family.

That of course assumes that there should be a restriction on peoples property rights.
Some county councils do indeed impose a ten year restriction on the sale of properties granted planning permission.
But do you really think that , the restriction is worth the paper it is written on as it is potentially unconstitutional.

What Bank would give a mortgage on such a property to the builder if they thought they had to wait ten years to sell it in the case of a default.
They give out the mortgages and indeed the properties are sold, at least here locally and to my knowledge the council hasn't been to court yet on the issue probably because they can't and rightly so.

Interfering with property rights in my view is a step in the wrong direction, it is a dictatorial and undemocratic precedent which could just as easily and wrongly be applied to cash or savings investments .
It would be far better to regulate the granting of planning permission based on guidelines which are reasonable eg the aesthetics of the area , local amenities etc.
If theres to be a quota on the number of new houses in an area for environmental reasons then that is to my mind also a fair condition.

The whole planning process in being ridiculed by the farmers who then proceed to sell off the houses/sites at the earliest opportunity.

Well assuming that there is no genuine reason, environmental or otherwise to refuse planning permission, what difference does it make who is living in the house??
People do have rights you know;) and one families rights are the same as the next.
Unless of course your actual objection is to the property owner ( ie in this case the farmer who sold the plot ) making a capital gain from his property which he owns and has the benefit of.
In which case you are making an ideological objection to an individuals property rights which has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion on who has the right to live wherever.

mm

RainyDay

Well assuming that there is no genuine reason, environmental or otherwise to refuse planning permission, what difference does it make who is living in the house??

The difference in the impact on the environment & community between a local living/working in the locality and a car-based commuter with no roots in the community is huge.

Victor

Originally posted by Man
It would be far better to regulate the granting of planning permission based on guidelines which are reasonable eg the aesthetics of the area , local amenities etc.If theres to be a quota on the number of new houses in an area for environmental reasons then that is to my mind also a fair condition.

Those are largely the criteria, except they also allow family (mostly sons and daughters) to build next to their parents. The whole system is then FUBARed when councillors get involved to help their favourite constituents who either (a) do not live nextdoor, but 6-60 miles away or (b) are property developers. In practice 75% of "property developers" (those dirty! people) in this country are farmers.

Originally posted by RainyDay
The difference in the impact on the environment & community between a local living/working in the locality and a car-based commuter with no roots in the community is huge.

With respect, that ignores a persons rights,it installs a bigger right on one family than another-that is wrong in my honest opinion.
Secondly what evidence do you to have to suggest that for example people living in wicklow town who work in Dublin have no roots in the community??
Or indeed their comrades who live outside the town.
That question you can answer for Navan or Naas either.

Originally posted by Victor:
In practice 75% of "property developers" (those dirty! people) in this country are farmers.

Theres no evidence of that either, I can see farmers selling lands close to towns alright, but they sell them to property speculators or developers.
The farmer while making a tidy profit out of his own property takes the least out of it and most certainly is not the developer.

mm

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
If the farmers can get planning permission without claiming the property is for the long-lost son returning from the big shmoke, then of course, they are entitled to sell it off as they see fit. But if they claim it is for family, it should be restricted to family. [/B]

I'd prefer if they did something similar to all those people in Tallaght and such places. Then noone there would be allowed to move and selling the house in the country wouldn't be an option as there'd be no buyers.:D

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
Secondly what evidence do you to have to suggest that for example people living in wicklow town who work in Dublin have no roots in the community??
Or indeed their comrades who live outside the town.
That question you can answer for Navan or Naas either.

This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

But how do you know it isn't genuine? Surely there are some people for whom that is the genuine reason.

Originally posted by RainyDay
This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

How do you know it's based on family reasons and what evidence do you have to make such a generalisation?
If you come down to where I live in the country I can show you plenty of examples of where farmers have sold land to completely unrelated individuals subject to planning permission. and in most cases the planning permission has been granted.
In some cases, a lot of money has been spent on architect fee's and in dealing with spurious reasons for declining the permission prior to the appeal.
One case that I know of, was refused three times because the building would be visible from the N11...It would alright with an expensive pair of binoculars:D
Indeed if you head out west, and mention An Taisce you run the risk of being lynched;)

Cork

I would be in favour of rural housing. But as family homes not as holiday homes.

The government should introduce a property tax on holiday homes. These are driving up house prices in rural Ireland and Summer Dwellers contribute little to Community.

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
I'd prefer if they did something similar to all those people in Tallaght and such places. Then noone there would be allowed to move and selling the house in the country wouldn't be an option as there'd be no buyers.:D

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Cork
I would be in favour of rural housing.

Do you mean a 5 bedroomed bungalow 3 miles down a laneway no one can find or organised and serviced house in villages?

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
What do you mean? Do you mean a 5 bedroomed bungalow 3 miles down a laneway no one can find or organised and serviced house in villages?

People should be allowed to build where there is a road. In famine times - many settlements were up mountains. I am not purposing that.

But, when you look at the madcap development of our capital city. We need better planning than "Adamstown" and domer towns servicing a city that can't handle traffic.

The Luas is a disaster. How much money is this thing costing? Knock airport was built for about 10 million. Would that even pay the postage costs associated with Luas?? Dublin - our capital is in a state of near gridlock. Should we disallow further development of the place untill it gets it's act together?

Even, the whole population inbalance in Ireland. Do we want everybody living around Dublin?

We need regionalisation. People should be allowed to build houses that fit in to the landscape. But I am totally aganist holiday homes - such developments should be liable to a hefty property tax.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
How do you know it's based on family reasons and what evidence do you have to make such a generalisation?
If you come down to where I live in the country I can show you plenty of examples of where farmers have sold land to completely unrelated individuals subject to planning permission. and in most cases the planning permission has been granted.

Hi Man - I don't have any documented, solid evidence. However, I have personally come across so many cases of homes where planning permission was given for family and then the property was quickly sold-off to the highest bidder, that I am absolutely convinced that this is a fairly widespread practice. There was good coverage of this topic on RTE's 57Live show during last week too.

BTW, it is not just a rural issue. Over the weekend, I heard of two cases where permission for 'in-fill' houses in urban locations was granted for 'family reasons' which were then sold off to the highest bidder too.

Originally posted by RainyDay
However, I have personally come across so many cases of homes where planning permission was given for family and then the property was quickly sold-off to the highest bidder, that I am absolutely convinced that this is a fairly widespread practice.

But what you cannot say in all of those cases, is whether planning would also have been given on the same plot to non family members.
It would appear that from my experience, sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time.

Sites have been sold by landowners for generations.
Your use of the term "the latest cash crop for farmers" is incorrect.
It's only their value that has increased, by four or five fold but then so have many peoples incomes with the exception of farmers of course.

mm

Cork

Originally posted by Man

It's only their value that has increased, by four or five fold but then so have many peoples incomes with the exception of farmers of course.

mm

Man - I agree with you - with the exception of building holiday homes. Holiday homes are a blight onthe rural environment.

Environmentalists should look at the lack of services in parts of our capital city. People spending long periods of time getting to and from work. The development of domer towns - that people choose because they might be a certain distanxe from Dublin.

Planning in our cities has not been up to stratch. The cost of putting in LUAS into Dublin is proving expensive. Yet, will it solve Dublins transport gridlock?

Yet, companies like Ebay are attracted to Dublin instead of Athlone. You see intergrated public transport systems out in Austrailia - In Dublin - We'll have the luas!.

How much more development can Dublin take? How many more "adamstowns" will it take?

We need decent decentralisation with decent regionalisation policies.

"One Off Rural Housing" is a smoke screen of a debate.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
But what you cannot say in all of those cases, is whether planning would also have been given on the same plot to non family members.

No - No-one could be sure of the answer to the hypothetical question. But if the family issue is not relevant, why do they bother mentioning this on the planning application at all? And why do the Anti-Taisce's make so much of the 'homes for the poor son or daughter' guff in their outpourings to the press.

Originally posted by Man

It would appear that from my experience, sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time.

Really - all the time? 100% of the time. That sounds like a fairly large over-generalisation to me.

jd

Originally posted by Cork
The government should not be telling people where to live. We live in a free and open country and not in communist state.

Grand-the government shouldn't tell people where to live. However, maybe if people had to pay the full economic cost of providing services eg ESB, Telephone, sewage, water I'd have more sympathy.
And this crap about

Settlements in pre-famine Ireland were all over the place. There were more living out in the country than today. People had to walk to school.

Ireland was a backward, undeveloped country in those days. I'd guess it's not unrelated to what you have stated.

Originally posted by RainyDay

Really - all the time? 100% of the time. That sounds like a fairly large over-generalisation to me.

It's not a generalisation if you read it in context.
I said "sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time".
I didn't say sites are being sold to strangers all the time.

Regarding:

But if the family issue is not relevant, why do they bother mentioning this on the planning application at all? And why do the Anti-Taisce's make so much of the 'homes for the poor son or daughter' guff in their outpourings to the press.

It is normal to mention on the planning application the person etc who is actually applying
Regarding An Taisce specifically, as long as the usual environmental rules and the affects on the visual surroundings are taken into affect, I personally don't have a problem with planning decisions.
I do have a problem where decisions are taken based on who should or should not live in a particular area, as that is a form of Rasism to be Brutally honest.
As I said earlier , it smacks of giving one person more rights than the other and that is wrong.

mm

Cork

Originally posted by jd
Grand-the government shouldn't tell people where to live. However, maybe if people had to pay the full economic cost of providing services eg ESB, Telephone, sewage, water I'd have more sympathy.

I think phone companies have to provide a universal service. The house builder usually pays for his own septic tank & there are many out the country who get water from private water schemes.

The survey in last fridays newspaper showed that people outside Sublin were paying considerably more for rubbish dispostal than their city cousins. This despite the fact that some of Dublins waste is being disposed of outside Dublin.

The arguement of provision of services being more expensive outside major towns does not really stand. We live in a pretty small country. In OZ and US - there populations are dispersed - Yet in Ireland the provision of services is a big issue.

jd

Originally posted by Cork
I think phone companies have to provide a universal service.

As do the ESB..
But the point is people should pay the full economic cost of providing the service, USO or not, otherwise everybody else is subsidising the cost.

Cork

Originally posted by jd
As do the ESB..
But the point is people should pay the full economic cost of providing the service, USO or not, otherwise everybody else is subsidising the cost.

Eircom is a private company. This is a small country. It is not like ESB or Eircom are bring out lones far away from the nearest outpost/

jd

Originally posted by Cork
Eircom is a private company. This is a small country. It is not like ESB or Eircom are bring out lones far away from the nearest outpost/

Well then, it shouldn't be too expensive for the householders to pay the full economic cost of the lines

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
The arguement of provision of services being more expensive outside major towns does not really stand. We live in a pretty small country. In OZ and US - there populations are dispersed - Yet in Ireland the provision of services is a big issue.

Actually both the USA and Australia have much more urban populations than Ireland - nearly everybody lives in towns and very, very few live in the country.

Imposter

Originally posted by Victor
What do you mean?

'Twas tongue in cheek but:
I mean that all the houses that go on sale and new estates that are built thbetween 30 to 60 miles of dublin are being bought mostly by dubliners who want to escape the worst areas of dublin. As a result locals can't afford the housing as pay in Dublin is generally higher. These people then commute to Dublin and spend a lot of their money in Dublin. Thus generally being the same dubliner but living in a (slightly) safer environment, and thus causing some friction with sections of the local community.

These one off houses are sometimes the only way these locals can afford a house in their area. For them to realise that it's worth more than it was when they built it and then sell it a few years later is bound to happen, just like in the case of the Jackeen above who realises they can have a better standard of living than they currently have if the sell their house and relocate or build another. That doesn't mean I agree with building these one off houses just to sell it asap. It's just that this is what seems to be happening where i'm from.

Imposter

Originally posted by jd
Well then, it shouldn't be too expensive for the householders to pay the full economic cost of the lines

Or too expensive for Dubliner's to pay for their own waste (which should be dumped in their own landfills), or too expensive for Dubliners to pay the full costs of public transport ('cause there ain't the same 'service' - as bad as it is in Dublin - in rural areas).